I had an interesting idea. On this thread, and please keep it to this thread only. I would like to invite the members of DDO to look a my profile and completely tear it apart. What i mean by this is I am inviting the members of DDO to argue against everything and to thrash every ideology or stance mentioned.

For example, if you look at my big issues and see that I disagree with you on one of them, feel free to bash/contend with me on it. I would ask that those who do this have some amount of reason and logic in their posts. Another example would be that on my profile you can see that I am Mormon. Feel free to tear that religious ideology apart as you see fit. You can even look at some of my likes or even decide to bash on my name.

I may or may not respond and i may or may not be swayed based on what is posted here. I have many reasons for requesting this. Please remember also that I would like at least some thought and logic put into the responses.

But my own reasons for sending this invitation aside. Please have fun and remember to keep it contained in this specific thread.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

First of all, what I put in my body is none of your goddamn business. To copy-paste something I wrote for a facebook argument:"Who owns your body—you or the government? The answer, that only you can own your own body, may seem obvious to you, but it's not to the people in Washington. Only a group of people that thought that every person in America was their property could conceive of the war on drugs.

What does self-ownership have to do with the war on drugs? The connection is that the drug warriors are treating Americans as their property. Just as a home owner has the right to decide how his house may or may not be used, a person owner gets to decide how a body may or may not be used. With their war on drugs, politicians claim the absolute right to tell you what you may or may not voluntarily put in your own body.

Any reasonable person would agree that we are not the government's property. But what does this mean? It means that I have the right to put whatever I want into my body, and if someone doesn't like it, they're free to mind their own business. It means that if armed government thugs kidnap me and lock me in prison, or shoot me if I refuse to be kidnapped, because of what I choose to put in my body, they're no better than any other violent criminals.

Don't like drugs? Don't do them. Really don't like drugs? Convince others to not do them. But the second you point a gun at someone doing something you don't like, and force them to stop, you're a violent criminal. And the second you tell the government to point the gun for you, you're just as bad as the drug warriors themselves."

Second, all of the consequences of the drug war are terrible too. There's no evidence that it even significantly reduces drug use (When criminal penalties for use have been removed, drug use stayed about the same, and health and crime problems associated with drug use went down: http://www.cato.org... ). Even if drug use did go up, the vast majority of the negative effects associated with it are because of the drug war, not because of drugs. For example, drug use has nothing to do with violence (except for alcohol use) http://www.druglibrary.org... The only violence associated with drugs is because of the drug war--making drugs illegal creates the cartels and gangs. And the blood of the thousands of people they kill is on your hands for supporting the drug war. More info: http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

First of all, what I put in my body is none of your goddamn business. To copy-paste something I wrote for a facebook argument:"Who owns your body—you or the government? The answer, that only you can own your own body, may seem obvious to you, but it's not to the people in Washington. Only a group of people that thought that every person in America was their property could conceive of the war on drugs.

What does self-ownership have to do with the war on drugs? The connection is that the drug warriors are treating Americans as their property. Just as a home owner has the right to decide how his house may or may not be used, a person owner gets to decide how a body may or may not be used. With their war on drugs, politicians claim the absolute right to tell you what you may or may not voluntarily put in your own body.

Any reasonable person would agree that we are not the government's property. But what does this mean? It means that I have the right to put whatever I want into my body, and if someone doesn't like it, they're free to mind their own business. It means that if armed government thugs kidnap me and lock me in prison, or shoot me if I refuse to be kidnapped, because of what I choose to put in my body, they're no better than any other violent criminals.

Don't like drugs? Don't do them. Really don't like drugs? Convince others to not do them. But the second you point a gun at someone doing something you don't like, and force them to stop, you're a violent criminal. And the second you tell the government to point the gun for you, you're just as bad as the drug warriors themselves."

Second, all of the consequences of the drug war are terrible too. There's no evidence that it even significantly reduces drug use (When criminal penalties for use have been removed, drug use stayed about the same, and health and crime problems associated with drug use went down: http://www.cato.org... ). Even if drug use did go up, the vast majority of the negative effects associated with it are because of the drug war, not because of drugs. For example, drug use has nothing to do with violence (except for alcohol use) http://www.druglibrary.org... The only violence associated with drugs is because of the drug war--making drugs illegal creates the cartels and gangs. And the blood of the thousands of people they kill is on your hands for supporting the drug war. More info: http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...

What about preventing children from using controlled substances?To clarify, I'm talking about controlling the substance for "minors" unitl they can make an *informed decision on using the substance in question.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

BS

It's a non sequitur. The "if" in 4 precludes the "only" in 6.

Who's to say minimum wage will be set above marginal productivity?

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

BS

It's a non sequitur. The "if" in 4 precludes the "only" in 6.

Who's to say minimum wage will be set above marginal productivity?

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

I see your a Mormon. Mormonism is a false religion. The so called prophet Joseph Smith was an immoral polygamist. He had at least 33 wives during his life. God is clearly against that.Also their is only one God according to the Bible. But Mormonism teaches that their are many Gods.

I wouldn't mind debating you. But would prefer to do it after I am done with some of my 6 debates going on right now. One of them on the topic of Mormonism.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

BS

It's a non sequitur. The "if" in 4 precludes the "only" in 6.

Who's to say minimum wage will be set above marginal productivity?

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

Sorry for derailing the tear apart thread.

It also raises the pay of those that are not unemployed. So it doesn't "only" cause unemployment.

Also, the argument, when a new company comes in and puts 50 people out of work, is that those 50 people are now free (as if they weren't before) to go do other work. The same is true for unemployed through minmium wage. They are now free to go find other jobs and do other things.

At 4/5/2011 12:41:39 PM, phantom wrote:I see your a Mormon. Mormonism is a false religion. The so called prophet Joseph Smith was an immoral polygamist. He had at least 33 wives during his life. God is clearly against that.Also their is only one God according to the Bible. But Mormonism teaches that their are many Gods.

I wouldn't mind debating you. But would prefer to do it after I am done with some of my 6 debates going on right now. One of them on the topic of Mormonism.

I don't get your signature

"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ

At 4/5/2011 12:41:39 PM, phantom wrote:I see your a Mormon. Mormonism is a false religion. The so called prophet Joseph Smith was an immoral polygamist. He had at least 33 wives during his life. God is clearly against that.Also their is only one God according to the Bible. But Mormonism teaches that their are many Gods.

I wouldn't mind debating you. But would prefer to do it after I am done with some of my 6 debates going on right now. One of them on the topic of Mormonism.

I don't get your signature

That's cuz it has no meaning.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

BS

It's a non sequitur. The "if" in 4 precludes the "only" in 6.

Who's to say minimum wage will be set above marginal productivity?

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

Sorry for derailing the tear apart thread.

It also raises the pay of those that are not unemployed. So it doesn't "only" cause unemployment.

And how exactly does it do that? If the minimum wage is set below my marginal productivity, then it doesn't affect me--it won't affect engineers at all, for example. If it's set above, it unemploys me.

Also, the argument, when a new company comes in and puts 50 people out of work, is that those 50 people are now free (as if they weren't before) to go do other work. The same is true for unemployed through minmium wage. They are now free to go find other jobs and do other things.

No, they aren't, because their labor isn't worth much. People whose marginal productivity is below minimum wage are generally young, unskilled workers, and stay that way once they're unemployed by the minimum wage. Being fired doesn't raise their marginal productivity, so they stay unemployed.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

BS

It's a non sequitur. The "if" in 4 precludes the "only" in 6.

Who's to say minimum wage will be set above marginal productivity?

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

Sorry for derailing the tear apart thread.

It also raises the pay of those that are not unemployed. So it doesn't "only" cause unemployment.

And how exactly does it do that? If the minimum wage is set below my marginal productivity, then it doesn't affect me--it won't affect engineers at all, for example. If it's set above, it unemploys me.

All the people at minimum wage, that if minimum wage was removed, their pay would be cut. Or do you believe that by removing minimum wage, that no one's pay would be cut? That everyone at burgerking, would continue with their current pay?

Also, the argument, when a new company comes in and puts 50 people out of work, is that those 50 people are now free (as if they weren't before) to go do other work. The same is true for unemployed through minmium wage. They are now free to go find other jobs and do other things.

No, they aren't, because their labor isn't worth much. People whose marginal productivity is below minimum wage are generally young, unskilled workers, and stay that way once they're unemployed by the minimum wage. Being fired doesn't raise their marginal productivity, so they stay unemployed.

But we don't see many people staying unemployed for extended periods of time. It has only been recently, while minimum wage has been around for many decades. People who's marginal productivity at one job is less than what it is worth for an employer would either improve their skills in that field, or go to a different field and gain skills in that other field. We see this is true as most people throughout history do not stay unemployed forever.

We also know that employers don't pay at the marginal value, since if they did, they would make no profit, they always pay below it.

1) There exists a marginal productivity (Amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

this

BS

It's a non sequitur. The "if" in 4 precludes the "only" in 6.

Who's to say minimum wage will be set above marginal productivity?

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

Sorry for derailing the tear apart thread.

It also raises the pay of those that are not unemployed. So it doesn't "only" cause unemployment.

And how exactly does it do that? If the minimum wage is set below my marginal productivity, then it doesn't affect me--it won't affect engineers at all, for example. If it's set above, it unemploys me.

All the people at minimum wage, that if minimum wage was removed, their pay would be cut. Or do you believe that by removing minimum wage, that no one's pay would be cut? That everyone at burgerking, would continue with their current pay?

If that was how wages work, then why don't employers cut everyone's wages down to minimum wage? People will make the market wage if it is legally allowed, and will make nothing if it isn't.

Also, the argument, when a new company comes in and puts 50 people out of work, is that those 50 people are now free (as if they weren't before) to go do other work. The same is true for unemployed through minmium wage. They are now free to go find other jobs and do other things.

No, they aren't, because their labor isn't worth much. People whose marginal productivity is below minimum wage are generally young, unskilled workers, and stay that way once they're unemployed by the minimum wage. Being fired doesn't raise their marginal productivity, so they stay unemployed.

But we don't see many people staying unemployed for extended periods of time. It has only been recently, while minimum wage has been around for many decades.

The minimum wage hasn't been very high. But, for example, if you look at the most recent increase, unemployment skyrocketed among young people, particularly young minorities, after the rise. It was going up anyway, because of the recession, but the rate at which it was increasing was much higher shortly after the increase than before it--and much higher than the rise in unemployment for groups not affected by the minimum wage as much.

People who's marginal productivity at one job is less than what it is worth for an employer would either improve their skills in that field, or go to a different field and gain skills in that other field. We see this is true as most people throughout history do not stay unemployed forever.

How? If they are allowed to work for a low wage, for training, an employer may be willing to take a chance with them, let them work and get experience and skills. But employers can't do that--they have to hire unskilled high school dropouts at the minimum wage or not at all. So they don't hire them at all. And these people are certainly willing to work for less, given the opportunity. Most gang members, for example, make less than minimum wage, and for a very dangerous job. I'm sure many of them would prefer a safer and more legal job if they were allowed to get one.

We also know that employers don't pay at the marginal value, since if they did, they would make no profit, they always pay below it.

I didn't say they paid at the marginal value, I said they paid near it, which is why profit rates, as a percentage of total revenues, are only a few percentage points, and have been for some time (for industries that hire low-skilled workers, the ones we're talking about).

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Well that's palpably false, it can clearly also benefit those workers whose pay would otherwise be well below their marginal productivity.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

That's a great way to completely sidestep my statement and attempt to reduce my position to absurdity.

As I said, they pay the least they can get away with paying. Skilled workers can be in a position to hold out for higher wages, unions can also help workers get fairer pay.

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).

It assumes that an unskilled worker will have the option of obtaining alternative employment at a higher rate of pay.

Why would a company want to entice their competitor's employees away by paying them more, when they can just hire someone else at the same low wage, thus keeping their own profits higher?

That's why I said, "only" cause unemployment, rather than "always." It could also do nothing, if it's set very low.

Well that's palpably false, it can clearly also benefit those workers whose pay would otherwise be well below their marginal productivity.

Businesses don't pay based on marginal productivity, they pay the least they can get away with paying.

Tell me, if the minimum wage works the way you think it works, then why does anyone ever make more than minimum wage? Why don't evil businessmen just pay everyone the lowest they can--the minimum wage?

That's a great way to completely sidestep my statement and attempt to reduce my position to absurdity.

As I said, they pay the least they can get away with paying. Skilled workers can be in a position to hold out for higher wages, unions can also help workers get fairer pay.

2 assumes that workers have some kind of bargaining power in the job market but when unemployment is high, it's no skin off a company's nose if a worker goes and gets a higher paying job with a competitor. There will be plenty more desperate drones to exploit.

It assumes nothing, other than that people are greedy and want money. As long as there are businessmen who want to increase their profits, 2 will be true.

2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (If a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).

It assumes that an unskilled worker will have the option of obtaining alternative employment at a higher rate of pay.

Why would a company want to entice their competitor's employees away by paying them more, when they can just hire someone else at the same low wage, thus keeping their own profits higher?

First, why exactly are these people businesses can hire for "the same low wage"? If they're the unemployed--then why are they unemployed? Everyone has some marginal productivity, so there is always a profit to be made hiring people at some wage. Because of this, there's no involuntary unemployment in a free market. If there are a pool of unemployed unskilled laborers for businesses to choose from, it's only because of government intervention. There's no shortage of greed in the world--if there's a profit to be made hiring such people, and it's legal to do so, businesses will.

Second, what evidence do you have that workers are not paid near their marginal productivity without a minimum wage? Profits have historically been only a few percentage points--and that's only nominal profits, not economic profits (economic profits include the opportunity cost to entrepreneurs. If I could have made $100,000 working a regular job, and make $100,000 in profit running a business, then I've made 0 economic profit. This is the more important measure of profits, as people are likely to just take a regular job if they can make more money with it (0 or negative economic profit), even if their business is making a nominal profit).

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

First, why exactly are these people businesses can hire for "the same low wage"? If they're the unemployed--then why are they unemployed?

Because they can't find work that let's them keep their human dignity and earn a liveable wage.

Everyone has some marginal productivity, so there is always a profit to be made hiring people at some wage.

There are also profits to be made by paying workers less and less to increase the margins. Once wages fall below the costs of survival the employee has no incentive to work.

Because of this, there's no involuntary unemployment in a free market.

So if someone can earn a tin of beans by being sexually exploited or by mining dangerous substances then they should be grateful for the job opportunity?And if someone is unwilling to do a degrading or dangerous job they would be voluntarily unemployed?

If there are a pool of unemployed unskilled laborers for businesses to choose from, it's only because of government intervention.

Sure and people starve to death in famine ridden countries because of government intervention I suppose? There can be plenty of reasons for pools of unemployed workers that have nothing to do with government, outsourcing labour from abroad, factory closures, lack of investment etc.

There's no shortage of greed in the world--if there's a profit to be made hiring such people, and it's legal to do so, businesses will.

And if there is a profit to be made by paying workers the least amount possible, businesses will.

Second, what evidence do you have that workers are not paid near their marginal productivity without a minimum wage?

How about centuries of oppression, aristocracy, slavery and exploitation? If profit levels had been historically and currently low then wealth disparity would not exist in the levels it does today.

Profits have historically been only a few percentage points--and that's only nominal profits, not economic profits (economic profits include the opportunity cost to entrepreneurs. If I could have made $100,000 working a regular job, and make $100,000 in profit running a business, then I've made 0 economic profit. This is the more important measure of profits, as people are likely to just take a regular job if they can make more money with it (0 or negative economic profit), even if their business is making a nominal profit).

First, why exactly are these people businesses can hire for "the same low wage"? If they're the unemployed--then why are they unemployed?

Because they can't find work that let's them keep their human dignity and earn a liveable wage.

Nice lack of an argument. They're unemployed because they can't find jobs? No sh­it. Obviously, I was asking why that is happening.

Everyone has some marginal productivity, so there is always a profit to be made hiring people at some wage.

There are also profits to be made by paying workers less and less to increase the margins. Once wages fall below the costs of survival the employee has no incentive to work.

When wages "fall"? When has that ever happened in a free market? The industrial revolutions, the period closest to one, saw the greatest increase in the well-being and wages of mankind in humanity's history.

Because of this, there's no involuntary unemployment in a free market.

So if someone can earn a tin of beans by being sexually exploited or by mining dangerous substances then they should be grateful for the job opportunity?And if someone is unwilling to do a degrading or dangerous job they would be voluntarily unemployed?

Are you saying that the ONLY jobs people are capable of doing are those things? If not, and they can be productive elsewhere--have some marginal productivity while not doing those things--then I'm right.

If there are a pool of unemployed unskilled laborers for businesses to choose from, it's only because of government intervention.

Sure and people starve to death in famine ridden countries because of government intervention I suppose?

Correct, which is why there has never been a famine in a capitalist country in human history--only when government interfered in the food industry.

There can be plenty of reasons for pools of unemployed workers that have nothing to do with government, outsourcing labour from abroad, factory closures, lack of investment etc.

That doesn't refute what I said at all. Does there exist a marginal productivity for workers? Do businessmen want more money? If the answer to both of these is yes, then I'm right.

There's no shortage of greed in the world--if there's a profit to be made hiring such people, and it's legal to do so, businesses will.

And if there is a profit to be made by paying workers the least amount possible, businesses will.

Sure, if they could. If it were up to businesses, everyone would make minimum wage, or nothing. But wages don't work like that. Wages--all wages--like any other price, are determined by the forces of supply and demand. Minimum wages don't change either of those things, and so they can't increase wages.

Second, what evidence do you have that workers are not paid near their marginal productivity without a minimum wage?

How about centuries of oppression, aristocracy, slavery and exploitation? If profit levels had been historically and currently low then wealth disparity would not exist in the levels it does today.

Nice evidence bro. Is that why the average profits for businesses have been historically around 100%, because they've been paying workers that much less than their labor is worth? Oh, wait, that's not what profit rates have been like at all.

Profits have historically been only a few percentage points--and that's only nominal profits, not economic profits (economic profits include the opportunity cost to entrepreneurs. If I could have made $100,000 working a regular job, and make $100,000 in profit running a business, then I've made 0 economic profit. This is the more important measure of profits, as people are likely to just take a regular job if they can make more money with it (0 or negative economic profit), even if their business is making a nominal profit).

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

First, why exactly are these people businesses can hire for "the same low wage"? If they're the unemployed--then why are they unemployed?

Because they can't find work that let's them keep their human dignity and earn a liveable wage.

Nice lack of an argument.

It's not an argument, I was answering your question.

Everyone has some marginal productivity, so there is always a profit to be made hiring people at some wage.

There are also profits to be made by paying workers less and less to increase the margins. Once wages fall below the costs of survival the employee has no incentive to work.

When wages "fall"? When has that ever happened in a free market? The industrial revolutions, the period closest to one, saw the greatest increase in the well-being and wages of mankind in humanity's history.

Nice evidence bro and well done for focusing on one word and ignoring the rest of what I said.

Because of this, there's no involuntary unemployment in a free market.

So if someone can earn a tin of beans by being sexually exploited or by mining dangerous substances then they should be grateful for the job opportunity?And if someone is unwilling to do a degrading or dangerous job they would be voluntarily unemployed?

Are you saying that the ONLY jobs people are capable of doing are those things? If not, and they can be productive elsewhere--have some marginal productivity while not doing those things--then I'm right.

There are situations where those could be the only options yes. You keep telling yourself you're right though.

If there are a pool of unemployed unskilled laborers for businesses to choose from, it's only because of government intervention.

Sure and people starve to death in famine ridden countries because of government intervention I suppose?

Correct, which is why there has never been a famine in a capitalist country in human history--only when government interfered in the food industry.

Well I guess you can just say there's never been a truly capitalist country to make that statement true but I think you'll find people starved to death before there was ever a government to intervene.

There can be plenty of reasons for pools of unemployed workers that have nothing to do with government, outsourcing labour from abroad, factory closures, lack of investment etc.

That doesn't refute what I said at all.

Well you said this could only be caused by government intervention, so yes it does actually.

Does there exist a marginal productivity for workers? Do businessmen want more money? If the answer to both of these is yes, then I'm right.

Bollocks. Those facts do not make you right about "voluntary" unemployment..

There's no shortage of greed in the world--if there's a profit to be made hiring such people, and it's legal to do so, businesses will.

And if there is a profit to be made by paying workers the least amount possible, businesses will.

Sure, if they could. If it were up to businesses, everyone would make minimum wage, or nothing. But wages don't work like that. Wages--all wages--like any other price, are determined by the forces of supply and demand. Minimum wages don't change either of those things, and so they can't increase wages.

Bollocks again. Wages are determined by employers, without valuable skills or union representation the workers have nothing to bargain with in this trade.

Second, what evidence do you have that workers are not paid near their marginal productivity without a minimum wage?

How about centuries of oppression, aristocracy, slavery and exploitation? If profit levels had been historically and currently low then wealth disparity would not exist in the levels it does today.

Nice evidence bro. Is that why the average profits for businesses have been historically around 100%, because they've been paying workers that much less than their labor is worth? Oh, wait, that's not what profit rates have been like at all.

Nice evidence yourself bro. Are sweat shop workers paid close to marginal productivity when they work for jack to produce designer clothing?

Profits have historically been only a few percentage points--and that's only nominal profits, not economic profits (economic profits include the opportunity cost to entrepreneurs. If I could have made $100,000 working a regular job, and make $100,000 in profit running a business, then I've made 0 economic profit. This is the more important measure of profits, as people are likely to just take a regular job if they can make more money with it (0 or negative economic profit), even if their business is making a nominal profit).

I'm stupid.Obviously.

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself son, I wouldn't say you're stupid. You're just an arrogant arsewipe who's bought into what your economics teachers told you, don't feel bad.

It does seem to be a waste of time discussing stuff with you though, when you ignore half my points and resort to insults. Maybe we'll meet each other in the tournament or can debate some time in the future and I'll tear you a new one.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

First, why exactly are these people businesses can hire for "the same low wage"? If they're the unemployed--then why are they unemployed? Everyone has some marginal productivity, so there is always a profit to be made hiring people at some wage. Because of this, there's no involuntary unemployment in a free market. If there are a pool of unemployed unskilled laborers for businesses to choose from, it's only because of government intervention. There's no shortage of greed in the world--if there's a profit to be made hiring such people, and it's legal to do so, businesses will.

Marginal productivity can fall into the negative depending on capital, demand, etc.

If McDonald's hired 40 people to work machines that only required 5, even if they paid those additional 35 people nothing, the reduced efficiency would take a hit to profits (diseconomies of scale). Also, when marginal productivity falls below fixed costs, companies typically won't hire because there's no money to be made given the current demand/profit available.

Also, I'm not sure why you believe these circumstances can't arise in a free market.

First, why exactly are these people businesses can hire for "the same low wage"? If they're the unemployed--then why are they unemployed? Everyone has some marginal productivity, so there is always a profit to be made hiring people at some wage. Because of this, there's no involuntary unemployment in a free market. If there are a pool of unemployed unskilled laborers for businesses to choose from, it's only because of government intervention. There's no shortage of greed in the world--if there's a profit to be made hiring such people, and it's legal to do so, businesses will.

Marginal productivity can fall into the negative depending on capital, demand, etc.

If McDonald's hired 40 people to work machines that only required 5, even if they paid those additional 35 people nothing, the reduced efficiency would take a hit to profits (diseconomies of scale). Also, when marginal productivity falls below fixed costs, companies typically won't hire because there's no money to be made given the current demand/profit available.

Also, I'm not sure why you believe these circumstances can't arise in a free market.

That can happen for a specific business, like a single McDonalds, but when is there negative marginal productivity for unskilled workers in general? People always want more stuff--there's unlimited demand for more goods and services, so there's always something someone can do.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.